I believe there exists a fundamental error in the common perception =
of=20
reality: I hold that this error is the basis of the conflict decried =
above. In a=20
nutshell, the error concerns our confused concept of time. Every student =
has=20
been told countless times that Newton=E2=80=99s error (which stood for =
almost 300 years)=20
was that he assumed everyone=E2=80=99s clock could be set to read the =
same. In the same=20
vein, I hold that Einstein=E2=80=99s error (an error which has plagued =
science for=20
almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time. It =
is my=20
position that this perception so blocked his view (as even today it =
blocks the=20
view of the whole scientific community) that he made a mistake in his=20
fundamental view of the problem one would not expect of a high school =
science=20
student much less a trained scientist.

If you are going to take the position that to criticize Einstein or =
his work=20
is beyond the right of a mere mortal, read no further as this message is =
not for=20
you; however, if you have the mental capability to temporarily suspend =
judgment=20
and are willing to look at a possible alternative, please read on. If =
you=20
closely examine my arguments, you may be surprised by what you find. It =
is my=20
claim that the most important problem in modern physics is a subtly =
confused=20
concept of time. Please note that I am making no argument here against =
any of=20
the experimental results which are used to defend Einstein; the argument =
is=20
wholly with the interpretation of those results.

The Confusion Concerning Time

If I think the concept of time is confused, it behooves me to clarify =
exactly=20
where I believe the problem resides.

To begin with, the concept of time has been around long before the =
invention=20
of clocks and the concept never required the existence of accurate =
clocks. The=20
most fundamental characteristic of time is that it divides our universe =
(the=20
reality within which all experiments conceivable are performed) into two =
distinctly different realms: the past and the future! It is an =
experimental fact=20
supported by observations extending back to before written history that =
nothing=20
can be done to change the past and that we do not know exactly what the =
future=20
will turn out to be. The power and dependability of this single idea =
(that the=20
past and the future are fundamentally different realms) is the central =
reason=20
for the very existence of the concept of time. To forget this fact is to =
overlook a very important phenomena fundamental to our very existence. =

As I hold that the current concept of time is confused, it is =
necessary that=20
my concept of time must be at least slightly askew of the common =
interpretation.=20
Please afford me the small latitude I ask to present my slightly shifted =
concept=20
of time. In my argument, I would like to view time from the perspective =
of the=20
ancient past and bring that concept forward to what I think would have =
resulted=20
if our ancestors had understood everything we know today.

In the beginning, the concept of time was really a subtle reference =
to what=20
was known. To refer to a specific moment in the past (usually by naming =
a=20
significant event) was to provide a reference to the division between =
past and=20
future from the perspective of that event. Time was essentially =
delineated by a=20
succession of events. Even prior to the invention of writing, I am sure =
it was=20
evident to our ancestors that the motion of the sun (among other =
repetitive=20
events) provided a convenient commonly understood event as a easy =
reference. It=20
is my position that this is the real source of the idea behind clocks, =
devices=20
which could track and label the present. That is, to provide specific =
references=20
to the collection of interesting boundaries between the associated =
states of=20
past and the future. What should always be remembered here, is that =
these=20
references must correspond to a consistent set within our personal =
mental image=20
of reality.

Until Newton came along, I think the concept of time was in good =
alignment=20
with the needs of mankind; however, I think Newton's great success was =
the=20
source of a perspective which was fundamentally erroneous. In essence, =
Newton=20
showed that the future mechanical motion of many objects could be =
predicted from=20
the past motion via some very simple mathematical relations, time (as a=20
numerical parameter) became a very important scientific concept. This, =
in=20
itself, was not at all in violation of the concept of time which I have =
laid out=20
here.

If clocks are seen as mechanical devices designed to provide a =
convenient=20
laboratory collection of reproducible repetitive events, then there is =
no real=20
conflict with the earlier concept. The clock is then nothing more than =
the=20
source of a set of references to the division between past and future =
from the=20
perspective of the events being examined in the laboratory. Newton's =
error was=20
the presumption that these laboratory clocks provided a valid universal=20
collection of well understood events: i.e. that everybody's clock could =
be set=20
to agree. What should be remembered is that this issue, though very =
real, in no=20
way reduces the value of the clock; it merely removes the clock from =
fulfilling=20
the original concept of time.

The power of Newton's achievements, the ability of his ideas to =
analytically=20
predict the behavior of many events, insured the development of clocks =
of ever=20
finer precision. In fact, this precision became so important that the =
scientific=20
society actually moved to the position that "clocks define time"; =
totally losing=20
sight of the fact that the central issue of time was the division of the =
past=20
(that which cannot be changed) from the future (that which science is =
trying to=20
predict). We had become so sure time could be measured and numerically =
labeled=20
that we forgot the underlying purpose of the concept: i.e., to separate =
reality=20
into the two distinctly different realms, the past and the future.

Why did such a change raise no signs of difficulty? The issue, very =
clearly,=20
is misdirection of attention! Only magicians understand how easily =
people can be=20
misled. Misdirection of attention is the very soul of magic; with it =
magicians=20
can hide the truth for decades even when we know they are trying to fool =
us. In=20
science, attention is focused on new ideas, not on the old concepts =
which are=20
presumed to be clear and consistent; how else could Newton's error have =
stood=20
for three hundred years?

Consequence of Confusion

Einstein resolved the difficulty brought forth by Maxwell's equations =
and the=20
clear requirement of the Lorentz transformations by hypothesizing an =
alternate=20
geometry for the universe. His geometric solution to the problem has now =
been=20
accepted as incontrovertible. If I hold that Einstein made an error, I =
need to=20
display exactly where I think the error was made. Let us return for a =
moment to=20
the metric used in Einstein=E2=80=99s space-time, remembering that he =
used that metric=20
to define the geometry of the universe2:=20

Under normal circumstances, a person begins with a geometry designed =
to some=20
constraints and then deduces the metric after the fact for the purpose =
of=20
mathematical analysis. Einstein relied on the fact that the metric was=20
consistent with the Lorentz transformations and concluded that Minkowski =
geometry had to be the proper geometry to be used to describe reality. =

What Einstein apparently failed to realize was that, by analytically=20
representing the Lorentz transformations, he had already defined some =
aspects of=20
his mental picture which were not actually necessary. The assumption =
that clocks=20
measured time was already so solidly embedded in his representation of =
the=20
Lorentz transformations that he was unable to see his error even after =
he=20
himself actually discovered that clocks measured something else. What he =
missed=20
was that they could not be used to define the boundary between the past =
and the=20
future. From Einstein's perspective, this was the minor issue that =
simultaneity=20
could not be uniquely defined.

This issue was not found to be bothersome because Newton had =
established the=20
time dependent mechanical model of reality so powerfully that no one at =
the=20
time, saw any need for that ancient division between the two realms of =
reality.=20
It was the authoritative scientific position that, if you knew past =
exactly, the=20
future would be exactly predictable and the boundary, from the =
scientific=20
perspective was unimportant. A very important concept was discarded as=20
unnecessary3!=20
I hold that this is the exact source of the conflict between Relativity =
and=20
Quantum mechanics.

Since that time, experimenters have been analytically displaying =
their data=20
in Einstein=E2=80=99s picture and searching for relationships without =
really ever=20
questioning the applicability of his geometry. In order to understand =
Einstein=E2=80=99s=20
error and the consequences of that error we must understand the nature =
of what=20
is called "proper time". Proper time is related intimately to the metric =
of=20
Einstein=E2=80=99s representation of what he calls space-time4.=20

If one is familiar with Einstein=E2=80=99s theory of relativity, one =
should notice=20
two very important facts concerning real experiments which can be =
performed. The=20
first fact is that no physical object can follow a path in =
Einstein=E2=80=99s space-time=20
if any element of that path requires d to be non real (no physical object may move along =
a path where=20
d is imaginary).

This is the first sign that something is amiss here! If no object may =
follow=20
such a path, why does Einstein's proposed geometry of the universe =
include such=20
a path? That this is not a trivial question is pointed out by the fact =
that the=20
issue of objects following such paths is a serious question considered =
by modern=20
physicists. This is the impetus for the search for tacheons: particles =
which=20
travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light. Anyone competent in =
relativity=20
can show that the existence of such particles yield demonstrable =
violation of=20
causality: essentially, they allow the past to be changed! Serious =
scientists=20
usually dismiss this issue as a flight of fancy; however, if that is the =
case,=20
we are back to the original question: why should the geometry include =
such a=20
possibility?

The second fact, which is also of under appreciated significance =
(dismissed=20
as insignificant by everyone), is the fact that each and every object =
which has=20
any internal dynamic properties can function as a clock and that all =
such clocks=20
exactly measure d: i.e., proper time. This fact is true even under =
acceleration;=20
a point seldom pointed out by any authority on relativity5.=20

If one wishes to be exactly correct, any competent physicist knows =
that, when=20
he performs an experiment, there exists no clock in the universe which =
yields=20
the correct time for the reference frame used in the calculation of the=20
consequences of his experiment (such a clock would have to be in an =
absolutely=20
perfect rest frame). He will hold that the errors are negligible and=20
unimportant. I agree that they may,by care, be made as negligible as =
desired but=20
I deny that they are unimportant.

Please notice that, if one is to be exactly correct, a subtle problem =
has=20
been handed to the experimentalists. They take measurements on the real =
world:=20
x,y,z and "some clock reading". They then display that data in =
Einstein=E2=80=99s=20
geometry (the display is usually via analytic and not graphic methods =
but it is=20
display none the less). Somehow, they always manage to perceive the fact =
that=20
all clocks measure proper time to be a trivial issue, not really =
significant to=20
their problems. But Einstein=E2=80=99s coordinate system requests they =
display x, y, z=20
and time (not proper time). This error leads the experimenter into an =
almost=20
insoluble problem. His problems are only shielded from his personal =
realization=20
by the superb power of the mathematics available to him or the usually =
small=20
relativistic effects.

In order for you to understand the depth of the =
experimenter=E2=80=99s abstract=20
dilemma, consider the following circumstance. What kind of success would =
you=20
expect of a student who took data in an experiment =
(ai,bi)=20
and then displayed that data in a geometry using the coordinates a and =
c; where=20
he had defined b (one of his measured variables) to be path length of =
his=20
finished plot in the geometry. By selecting such a geometry, the student =
has=20
presented himself with an almost impossible problem: he must know the =
solution=20
(the consistent set of ci which go with his measurements=20
ai,bi) before he can display his data. If his data =
produces straight lines, the problem is straight forward; but if the =
data=20
produces curves, finding the corresponding data set (ci) will =
become=20
a mathematical chore that the very best of us would rather avoid.

That problem is exactly the problem the physics community has been =
faced with=20
solving during the last century. As would the student above, they have=20
discovered that the problem is quite easy so long as the data falls =
along=20
straight lines (special relativity, i.e., no acceleration) and time is =
linearly=20
related to proper time; but, just let a little acceleration confuse the =
issue=20
and to merely display the data analytically drives one to mathematical =
notation=20
so complex that very few (if any) experimentalists even bother to =
attempt a=20
"correct" representation. Most do not even develop the skills necessary =
to do=20
so.

The fundamental problem is two very different concepts of time. One =
concept=20
of time is the idea that there is a state called the present which =
divides the=20
universe into two different realms: the past which cannot be changed =
from the=20
future which cannot be exactly known. The second concept of time is that =
it is=20
the reading off a clock. These concepts are fundamentally inconsistent =
with one=20
another.

Two issues ignored by the scientific community should be looked at =
very=20
closely here. First, any competent physicists knows that it is =
impossible to=20
construct a device which will provide a universal division between past =
and=20
future for all possible reference frames. This being the case, they =
simply=20
ignore that concept of time as being of no scientific significance. =
Quantum=20
mechanics, on the other hand, seriously confronts that concept.

The second issue is the fact that all clocks are dynamic physical =
entities=20
controlled by the laws of physics. Since the fundamental axiom of =
relativity is=20
that the laws of physics are not frame dependent, the readings on a =
clock cannot=20
possibly be frame dependent! Note that the only measure in the theory of =
relativity which is totally independent of the reference frame is =
Einstein's=20
invariant interval which, as luck would have it, is exactly what all =
clocks=20
measure. Scientists avoid thinking about this issue by placing their =
reference=20
clocks in specific reference frames as if these frames are of special=20
significance.

A Path out of Confusion?

The answer to the dilemma is frightfully simple: one should work =
directly=20
with the experimentally measured variables. That is to say, we should be =
displaying our data in a geometry where the coordinates along the path =
of the=20
objects of interest are x,y,z and proper time. Notice that this change =
does=20
absolutely nothing to the data describing the universe! This change =
constitutes=20
no more than a different representation of exactly that same data and =
must obey=20
all the equations obeyed by the data in the original representation. It =
is no=20
more than a different (and, in some ways, more convenient) display. =
Please note=20
that I am not proposing either absolute time or any kind of "ether" =
theory; all=20
I am saying is that one may, at any time, choose a reference frame =
within which=20
to plot their data.

In order to see the consequences of displaying our data in this =
geometry, let=20
us rewrite the differential relationship derived from the Lorentz =
consistent=20
metric deduced by Einstein with the proper time under the radical; thus=20
discovering the metric of our suggested geometry consistent with physics =
driving=20
the change in the measured variables.

Several surprising things have occurred; two of which are apparently =
quite=20
unreasonable6.=20
One of the most astounding things about that metric is that it is =
exactly the=20
form we would expect for a Euclidean metric. Who, in their right mind =
would have=20
expected the Lorentz consistent transformations required by Maxwell's =
equations=20
to have lead us to a Euclidean space? The second rather different aspect =
of this=20
picture is that "t" has returned once more as a parameter of the motion, =
not a=20
coordinate.

On the other hand, two other consequences seem, at least at first =
glance, to=20
be in direct conflict with reality. First, if the measure along any path =
is cdt=20
and t is a parameter of the motion, the speed of every entity described =
in this=20
geometry is identical to the speed of light (a comment seemingly =
contradictory=20
to any experience). The other equally strange consequence, that tau =
apparently=20
represents a real axis totally and completely on par with the other =
three axes,=20
seems also to be in direct conflict with reality. This geometry is a =
four=20
dimensional Euclidean geometry and it is counter to our intuition that =
there=20
could exist another axis totally equivalent to x,y and z which is not=20
perceivable.

I would like to take time out to assure everyone who has managed to =
get this=20
far, that there is no physics here at all! We have done nothing except =
propose=20
to plot object paths in an alternate geometry; any problems which appear =
to=20
arise must arise because our mental picture does not map these events =
properly=20
into our common perception of reality (as seen in Einstein's space-time=20
continuum). I will therefore proceed with a proposed mapping which I =
think makes=20
sense.

Mapping the Picture into Reality

This fourth dimension, which arose from the path length from =
Einstein's=20
theory (his invariant interval), must be given as a function of t (the =
parameter=20
of the motion). It should be evident that c is a measure (confined to the space-time path of =
the event of=20
interest) of the total path length of that entity since it was created =
(the=20
integral of cd along that space-time path). Clearly, the start =
point is=20
either the beginning of the universe or some other point of interest. =
With=20
regard to that "point of interest", if we have two entities interacting, =
it is=20
quite rational to conclude their position in c coincide.

Now, that idea immediately generates some major problems. If you =
start laying=20
out your data in such a picture, it is very easy to set up the following =
problematical situation:

Start with two entities interacting at some time t=3D0 (we are free =
to set our=20
zero of the parameter of motion to any value). Presume that, following =
the=20
interaction, one proceeds into the future with a relativistic velocity =
whereas=20
the other proceeds at some much smaller velocity. Then allow the two to =
interact=20
later via a photon exchange. Clearly, from what we have said above, the =
two=20
entities no longer have the same value of and yet they interact via an entity which has the =
property=20
that has exactly the same value everywhere on its path =
(the=20
invariant interval along the path of a photon is exactly zero always). =
We=20
clearly have a logic problem in our picture.

How is it that this problem showed up here but not in Einstein's =
picture? As=20
I said earlier, all we are doing is re-plotting our data in an alternate =
coordinate system! The fact is that exactly the same difficulty showed =
up in the=20
conventional view only it was never brought to our attention. =
Essentially, we=20
failed to mention the well know fact that clocks need not read the same =
for=20
entities associated with those clocks to interact (remember, is exactly what is measured by clocks!) It follows =
that, in=20
our mental picture of the situation in our new coordinate system, differences must be projected out; they have =
nothing at all to=20
do with whether or not an interaction can take place.

So, our problem is solved. All we need do is remember that anytime =
x,y,z and=20
t are the same (independent of the value of ) entities can interact. If we keep that fact in =
mind, it is=20
not difficult to show that both pictures yield exactly the same =
experimental=20
results (as they have to)7.=20
However, it does lead us to thoughts we might not have within Einstein's =
picture.

Some thoughts about Quantum Mechanics

In this unconventional picture, we have a real coordinate, , who's actual value vanishes from the physics =
while the impact=20
of the time dependent changes in value remain significant. I do not know =
how=20
that strikes the reader, but I find myself drawn to the Heisenberg =
uncertainty=20
principal. If one takes the uncertainty in to be infinite, then one can only conclude that =
the momentum=20
in the direction is most probably quantized! What impact =
would such=20
an alteration in our mental picture have on the physics?

Clearly, in terms of our new metric, since tau is a real axis just =
like x, y=20
or z, momentum in the tau direction must be mass. This fact has far =
reaching=20
consequences. Who among you has ever performed an experiment in the =
total=20
absence of quantized mass? Every experimentalist I know of works in a =
laboratory=20
where almost everything he deals with is in a mass quantized state with=20
uncertainty in tau (half life) at least on the order of the age of the =
universe.=20
In fact, I would say that it is absolutely obvious that our day to day=20
experience is built on observations of nothing but mass quantized =
entities!

=20

It follows, absolutely and unconditionally, that the uncertainty in =
tau must=20
be infinite for any common physical measurements9.=20
That is, it follows directly that every entity in the universe that we =
deal with=20
on a day to day level can have no measurable irregularities in the tau=20
direction. The magnitude of the wave function which describes that =
entity and=20
its motion can not be a function of tau; clearly, the cross section=20
perpendicular to tau of any macroscopic object is absolutely and =
unconditionally=20
uniform over any range within our conception. Two physical consequences =
of this=20
fact jump immediately to mind: the tau dimension, real or not, yields no =
directly measurable phenomena thus vanishes from any possible perception =
and=20
secondly, the fact that clock readings have nothing at all to do with=20
interactions occurring does not contradict the picture at all.

Although the existence of a real tau axis could not possibly be =
directly=20
perceived, its existence does yield some subtle consequences. It =
follows, from=20
our total inability to perceive the tau dimension, that only those =
components of=20
motion perpendicular to tau can be perceived. Thus it becomes quite =
clear that,=20
although everything in the universe (in this mental picture) travels at =
the=20
speed of light, we only perceive velocities less than c (we are =
describing a 4=20
dimensional Euclidean universe and, in Euclidean geometry, a component =
of a=20
vector cannot be larger than the magnitude of that vector).

In the picture just constructed, the only case where an entity can be =
perceived to travel at the velocity of light occurs when its motion is =
entirely=20
perpendicular to tau. In that particular case, its momentum in the tau =
direction=20
must be zero: i.e., it is a massless object10.=20
On the other hand, in order for a massive object to approach the =
velocity of=20
light, it needs to have an almost unbelievably high momentum in the =
direction of=20
perceivable space as its momentum in the tau direction (its rest mass) =
is fixed.=20
Please note again that all of special relativity must be valid in this =
picture=20
as we have actually done absolutely nothing except re-plot our data in a =
different geometry; all numbers, all equations, and all relationships =
remain=20
exactly the same as they would be were we to use Einstein's preferred =
geometry.=20

What first appeared to be problems with the new metric turn out not =
to be=20
problems at all. In fact, as I have shown, direct detection of such a =
real axis=20
violates quantum theory. The beauty of the picture is that we are now =
dealing=20
with a Euclidean universe, much much simpler to mentally handle than =
Einstein's=20
space-time construct. Problems which were difficult to explain to a =
novice are=20
now simple. Time is once again a simple parameter of the motion. =
Simultaneity is=20
an well defined concept; in fact it can be shown that the universe in =
this=20
perspective is dynamically Newtonian in many respects. Time, as =
displayed in our=20
reference frame is an interaction parameter and is, in fact, the =
division=20
between past and future as per the original concept of time.

One should make one further observation about this frame and how it =
brings=20
consistency to our picture. Simultaneity is easy to define in any given=20
relativistic space-time frame; the problem is that individuals in =
different=20
frames will not agree with one anothers definition. However, all =
observers will=20
agree with the order of specific related interactions (a result often =
shown in=20
any examination of the subtleties of relativity3).=20
The solution here arise from the fact that "time", as define in this =
picture, is=20
not a measurable variable (it is rather a mental construct providing the =
separation between past and future). The standard Lorentz =
transformations=20
distort the entire geometry without disturbing that final result. A =
consequence=20
I will demonstrate to any interested party.

What is time dilation all about? It is very simple! Clocks simply do =
not=20
measure time: i.e., the rate at which we go into the future. They =
measure only=20
the undetectable tau component of our motion. On the other hand, any =
motion=20
through space must correlate directly with propagation into the future. =
In=20
ordinary circumstances, the component of our velocity perpendicular to =
tau is so=20
small that only the tau component of our motion is significant and that =
leads us=20
into the delusion that what is displayed on our clocks is time. The =
actual fact=20
is that all clocks, including our biological clocks, measure only tau=20
displacement (proper time!). Any movement in space perpendicular to tau =
forces=20
us into the future without changing either our personal clocks or our =
perception=20
of time passage.

=20

If we were to move one light year extremely quickly (that is, little =
time=20
would pass on our personal clock) we would find ourselves roughly an =
additional=20
year in the future not indicated on our clock. Remember, clocks do not =
measure=20
time, they measure proper time: i.e., change in tau! What we have =
actually done=20
in this case is to make our tau component of movement very small. Since =
our=20
actual velocity is always c, the space component of our velocity must, =
in this=20
example, be approaching c. Any outside observer (who only perceives =
motion=20
perpendicular to tau) will immediately conclude that we were traveling =
at very=20
close to the speed of light. It should be eminently clear that we can =
never=20
appear to exceed the speed of light because we merely end up going more =
quickly=20
into the future: that is, we simply go into the future without our =
clocks=20
changing!

Kinematically speaking, it is not difficult to show that the two =
seemingly=20
violently different pictures of the universe (Einstein's and mine) yield =
absolutely identical results as they must11.=20

There are two points I would like to make here: first, Einstein's =
relativity=20
is an extremely valuable perspective for expressing the laws of physics =
in a=20
form which are truly independent of our frame of reference but that fact =
should=20
be taken as a convenient mathematical structure and not a statement =
about the=20
"true" structure of reality. And second, if anyone is interested, it is =
not=20
difficult to show the analogous extent ion of this work into the area of =
General=20
Relativity. The results are much simpler than Einstein's machinations =
and also=20
produce a few subtle differences which I think are worth looking at=20
experimentally.

3. Just as an aside, I would like to point out =
that anytime=20
this difficulty is brought up (in any of its many possible guises), it =
is always=20
quite quickly dismissed as being of no consequence. Anyone competent in=20
relativity can show very easily that the finite speed of light yields =
the fact=20
that you can choose any reference frame you wish and, in detail, =
demonstrate=20
that no real difficulties exist. What I want the reader to comprehend is =
that it=20
is not the mathematical results of Einstein's theory of relativity with =
which I=20
argue. It is with the interpretation; an issue not yet clarified here: =
i.e.,=20
please delay judgment until my arguments are completed.

5. This statement is true by definition: i.e., =
even in=20
Einstein's own picture, the path length is given by the integral of =
icd along the path.

6. Please note that I say apparently. I say =
apparently=20
because I know I am only representing the data in a different geometry =
and that=20
the results cannot violate experiment; the difficulties are bothersome =
because=20
they imply my mental picture is in error.

7. So long as we remain in one, non accelerating =
reference=20
frame (which is true here as our purpose is nothing more than to display =
data)=20
there is nothing in Einstein's Theory of Relativity to deny us the =
option of=20
defining simultaneity. The difficulty occurs when we attempt to make =
such a=20
definition universal (true in anyones frame of reference).

8. Nothing more than the uncertainty in=20
m0c2 (Energy) in the unstable particle's rest =
frame!

9. If not infinite then something in excess of=20
3x1020 light years (that estimate is based on a rather =
conservative=20
estimate of the stability of protons). Note that this is over a billion =
times=20
the standard three dimensional diameter of the universe. You will excuse =
me if I=20
use a mental image of infinity.

10. Note that although the tau component of its =
velocity is=20
zero, its tau dimension is still infinite!

11. This is just a different way of ploting =
exactly the=20
same information.